These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

C5, C6 Mass discussion in regards to capitals.

First post
Author
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2016-04-06 17:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Rex, I feel it would still be fairly evenly balanced and also has the advantage of making capital pvp more interesting. However, I understand that you don't feel the same, so let's agree the disagree.

Back to the key issue... Instead of changing the mass of wormholes, why aren't we just reducing the mass of the dreads by whatever mass the new plates add? What?
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#42 - 2016-04-07 04:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Anyone arguing that increasing mass on WHs does not benefit large corps way more than small corps is either lying, ignorant or selling something.

PS: There's a really big difference between 3 dreads and 4 dreads Rek. There really is.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Winthorp
#43 - 2016-04-07 04:56:14 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Anyone arguing that increasing mass on WHs does not benefit large corps way more than small corps is either lying, ignorant or selling something.

PS: There's a really big difference between 3 dreads and 4 dreads Rek. There really is.


I like when the ignorant people post, don't you?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2016-04-07 07:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Corp size and capital power is all relative. Yes there are extreme examples like hard knocks but most corps will not field 3 capitals and a large sub cap fleet in the current system because of the huge risk and logistical nightmare of getting the fleet home. People only do it if they think they are going to win which is why I said 1 extra dread won't matter.

In reality most people will just bring 2 caps to a fight in a connected wormhole and returned home. I think this is better than the current situation.
Aleksey IV
Inner Hell
#45 - 2016-04-07 07:25:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleksey IV
Our corporation believes that the best to make all the holes in the class C5-C6 passmass a mass of 5b kg.
it's like the best given that many corporations involved in the fighting capital. Just CCP up basis weight of all capital ships on the test server, so it is necessary to increase the maximum throughput mass. At 5b kg hole part of the corporation may enter into battle 4-5 of capital ships, not 3 as it is now, it is much more interesting, because any, even a small corporations can easily put into action more than 3 capital ships.
Aso forced to increase the capacity factor between high class WH will be the introduction of Citadels. That will be hard to besiege "immediately" by 2 dreadnought and 1 fax will not be able to do it yourself, 4 dreadnought and fax - is more interesting.
The same changes need to make holes c5-nullsec c6-nullsec. For the hole lead in hi and low sec possible to leave 3b kg.

All accustomed to the fact that from the WH can not go more than 3 capital ships - mostly dreadnought 2 and 1 car (will now FAX). The ability to pass 5 capital ships (4 and a some BS) will make a variety in this world.

Small (only PVE (carebear)) WH groups in any case, always trying to avoid a fight if they see any PVP WH group. But for PVP WH groups 5B hole provides a wealth of new opportunities.

p.s. sorry for my English - google translator
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#46 - 2016-04-07 07:53:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Rek Seven wrote:
Corp size and capital power I all relative. Yes there are extreme examples like hard knocks but most but most corps will not field 3 capitals and a large sub cap fleet in the current system, because of the huge risk and logistical nightmare. People only do it if they think they are going to win which I why I said 1 extra dread won't matter.

I reality most people will just bring 2 caps to a fight in a connected wormhole and returned home. I think this is better than the current situation.

I honestly cant tell if this is just flat out ignorance, trolling, or if you're actually that naive.
whatever the case may be, you're certainly wrong.

PS: oh yes, and im shocked, SHOOOOOOCCCKKKKKKEEEDD that blood union thinks upping WH mass is a good idea. seriously, SHOCKED...
upping the mass doesnt add 'variety', it just adds more caps.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2016-04-07 08:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
You are so small minded it's hard to take, Jack... You make pointless statements and throw out insults without backing up your point of view or explaining why you disagree with another opinion. Argument for arguments sake seems more important to you than having a proper discussion and speaking to others with respect. It gets us nowhere!

For example:
Jack Miton wrote:

upping the mass doesn't add 'variety', it just adds more caps.
Do you really think that or are you simply trying to be a smart ass?

The ability to field a dread and a carrier against someone in there own home (with cap superiority) clearly adds variety to gameplay. Yes you can escalate with a further 2 caps but the hostlers will always have the home field advantage. It allows small groups to even up the odds without committing 100% by closing the wormhole behind.

If you don't want to have a constructive discussion fine, don't reply to my posts, and save your snide comments for someone else please.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#48 - 2016-04-07 08:39:31 UTC
How much mass do the capital plates add?
How big is the difference in strength in WH-PvP between the current activetank fits and a new bufferfit?
If you just bring a Nestor or a second capital you can refit to buffer right after the jump so no reason to buff the Whmass for that.
Aleksey IV
Inner Hell
#49 - 2016-04-07 08:43:31 UTC
Weight of all capital ships has been increased. If you have hole with 3B-10% mass, then in hole can pass only 2 capitals (as Moros and Fax), not 3. Without mass of plates.
Gbuz
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#50 - 2016-04-07 18:27:35 UTC
Oh WH's really confuse me
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#51 - 2016-04-07 23:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Rek Seven wrote:
For example:
Jack Miton wrote:

upping the mass doesn't add 'variety', it just adds more caps.
Do you really think that or are you simply trying to be a smart ass?

The ability to field a dread and a carrier against someone in there own home (with cap superiority) clearly adds variety to gameplay. Yes you can escalate with a further 2 caps but the hostlers will always have the home field advantage. It allows small groups to even up the odds without committing 100% by closing the wormhole behind.

If you don't want to have a constructive discussion fine, don't reply to my posts, and save your snide comments for someone else please.

I don't really understand what you want from me.
People do not take 1 cap into a real fight now when they can take 3 and they wont take 2 into a fight when they can take 4-5.
I'm not sure what part of that fact is being nonconstructive or snide.

The issue is that there's no limiting factor anymore, other than mass.
Everyone and their mother can fly multiple caps in wspace and isk is such a zero factor that it's laughable (i guess the isk part might change a little with the escalation nerf but it will be years till that has any real effect on medium to large groups).

if you up the mass, sure ok, i can concede that it might make a few small groups commit caps to a fight with another small group.
what it also does it guarantee that the large groups will always crush the smaller groups because theyll now be able to dump 4-5 caps on them rather than just 3 and the smaller groups lose home field advantage because they dont have access to 10 caps to out escalate an attacking force anymore and will be forced to defend with even or lower cap numbers against larger invading forces in fights they have no chance of winning far more often.

the general end result is a widening of the large corp vs. small corp gap in terms of what fights they can expect to stand a chance in which only leads to an N+1 mentality that isnt good for anything at all, ESPECIALLY not diversity of any kind.

none of this is rocket science, just think about what is really going to happen, not what you hope will happen in an idea world of butterflies and rainbows.

if you actually want to have WHs be return tripable in multiple caps, I get that, it would be nice. but flat upping the WH mass so that more caps fit through is NOT the answer.
the idea solution IMO would require a rework of the mechanics to allow cap ships (possibly any ships?) to return through a jumped WH without adding mass to it.
eg: you could take 3 caps through a 3bil WH 1 way, OR you could take 2 in and back without closing the hole.

PS: any mass changes the the cap ships themselves will obviously need to be reflected in the WH masses too, that's a completely separate issue.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

DG Athonille
Doomheim
#52 - 2016-04-08 03:22:19 UTC
As an alternative that might balance concerns of smaller WH corporations with the desire for more PvE and PvP content, perhaps a new capital only module could be introduced that would halve the mass of the ship similar to the warp disruption array on HICs?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2016-04-08 07:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Jack Miton wrote:

if you up the mass, sure ok, i can concede that it might make a few small groups commit caps to a fight with another small group.
what it also does it guarantee that the large groups will always crush the smaller groups because theyll now be able to dump 4-5 caps on them rather than just 3 and the smaller groups lose home field advantage because they dont have access to 10 caps to out escalate an attacking force anymore and will be forced to defend with even or lower cap numbers against larger invading forces in fights they have no chance of winning far more often.

the general end result is a widening of the large corp vs. small corp gap in terms of what fights they can expect to stand a chance in which only leads to an N+1 mentality that isnt good for anything at all, ESPECIALLY not diversity of any kind.

none of this is rocket science, just think about what is really going to happen, not what you hope will happen in an idea world of butterflies and rainbows.

if you actually want to have WHs be return tripable in multiple caps, I get that, it would be nice. but flat upping the WH mass so that more caps fit through is NOT the answer.
the idea solution IMO would require a rework of the mechanics to allow cap ships (possibly any ships?) to return through a jumped WH without adding mass to it.
eg: you could take 3 caps through a 3bil WH 1 way, OR you could take 2 in and back without closing the hole.

PS: any mass changes the the cap ships themselves will obviously need to be reflected in the WH masses too, that's a completely separate issue.


I'm looking at this in a post Citadel world where i don't think we will get may people farming sites in their home and instead, running sites in their static. In this scenario both groups would meet and fight on neutral ground and the number of capitals will not be the determining factor of the fight, it will be the number of sub-capitals that the large group can bring, just like it is now. If anything the ability for the small group to bring a carrier and a dread would free up some pilots to play a support roll.

I'm not saying large groups should always be able to crush the small groups no matter what but at the moment, the small groups hardly every intentionally take on large groups and win outside of their home. Their main interaction is during a capital escalation gank and it is rare/unheard of that a small group (5 guys) can stand up to a large group (15 guys). The simply avoid contact with them if possible.

Anyway to move this on, I completely agree with you that changing the mass of the wormhole should be the last resort. I would prefer that the mass was designed around the idea of plate swapping. Fore example, if you want to bring that extra cap and return home, you are going to have to strip all your plates before you jump in and jump out. This would slow down the capital ships and balance their use in PVP somewhat.
Hidden Fremen
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#54 - 2016-04-08 15:54:25 UTC
Keep jumpable mass the same, increase total WH mass so we can make battleship fleets shadow T3 fleets.
Allow maximum of one more cap through (total of four) a fresh wormhole?
Increase C4 connection mass to allow one capital.
Ilaister
Protean Concept
Moss Piglet Preservation Society
#55 - 2016-04-08 19:59:24 UTC
Hidden Fremen wrote:
Increase C4 connection mass to allow one capital.


Cat meet pigeons.

Interesting idea - we talking both ways? - and is the justification for evictions, to allow farmers to use carriers for C4 PVE or just to mix up the PvP meta in < C5 jspace?

As for OP BS fleets woulda been nice (up dat mass bebbeh) and having more than three people at a time getting to play with their big toys = also fun but I don't think we've got enough information to make a wise choice.

Maybe this question is better answered once the community has a handle on new carrier/fax/HAGDread mechanics?
Samsara Nolte
Untethered
#56 - 2016-04-09 11:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Samsara Nolte
Hidden Fremen wrote:
Keep jumpable mass the same, increase total WH mass so we can make battleship fleets shadow T3 fleets.
Allow maximum of one more cap through (total of four) a fresh wormhole?
Increase C4 connection mass to allow one capital.


The Corps living in C4 wormholes atm are living there for a reason.
And most of the time it is thex either can´t or won´t have capital warfare for whatever reasons or they just want to have the edge by having acces to capitals when aggressors don´t,
but do enjoy the double j-space statics that isolate them off from k-space more than any other class of wormhole is able to (no random k-space connections apart from those frig holes ...)

I highly doubt you will find a single C4 corp/alliance who is gonna be happy about the prospect of having C5 static C4 corps bringing caps with in their hole for whatever purposes they might have.
And given the differences in risk vs reward and the disparity in income of those two classes - i don´t see a single reason why the risk for C4 corps should be upped (remeber not everybody has a static C5 or even a static C4 living there) for no apparent gains ... then there probably are at most 2-3 C4 corps who might utilize this for their benefit. (and they also choose to live in C4 for a reason)
Every other one will be more at the mercy of the C5/C6 corp than they already are -
This proposal seems to be another attempt at getting CCP to help the strong ones to prey on the weak.

I´m also no fan of allowing more caps through wormholes.
I for one think that given the asset safety in j-space there should be a defenders advantage and allowing more caps through even just one ist cutting into that, which it shouldn´t and the number 3 is in my opinion just right.
Because you have to make choices do we go in bhaals deep or do we keep ourself an escape route open if the fight goes south ... and since cap escalations in C5 will stop being a reason to wanting to bring more caps into your static in few days i see no reason why there should be any change at all especially since this will generate more o chore if you wanna roll your hole (needing more players or more time) - and that is chore enough as it is.

Your other point regarding Battleship fleets - g
given that most high class connection are 3B you already can bring around 15 single plated battleships into a hole and back out. Only the bigger corps are able to field that amount of players on a regular basis - and given the fact that a plated t3 is around 20M you can field 5 t3 instead of a single battleship. What means if you are 20 guys in combat ships you can still bring around 14 BS and jump back out.
So BS fleets are already a thing in j-space (contrary to common believe it seems) and upping this limit given the combat capabilities of Battleships is once again a change targeted at the smaller corps decreasing their ability to defend their holes.
thereby defeating the right to existence of j-space in the first place which is the place to be for small corps.
Most of us are here because we don´t want to be part of some mega corp where we are F1 monkeys pushing one single button and where the ones bringing more guys to the field inevitable win.
Places where this is true already exist - they are called low and null sec.
J-space is better than that and should stay that way.
Hidden Fremen
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#57 - 2016-04-09 14:18:40 UTC
Ilaister wrote:
Hidden Fremen wrote:
Increase C4 connection mass to allow one capital.

Interesting idea - we talking both ways?

One way
Hidden Fremen
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#58 - 2016-04-09 14:25:24 UTC
Samsara Nolte wrote:
Hidden Fremen wrote:
Keep jumpable mass the same, increase total WH mass so we can make battleship fleets shadow T3 fleets.
Allow maximum of one more cap through (total of four) a fresh wormhole?
Increase C4 connection mass to allow one capital.


The Corps living in C4 wormholes atm are living there for a reason.
And most of the time it is thex either can´t or won´t have capital warfare for whatever reasons or they just want to have the edge by having acces to capitals when aggressors don´t,
but do enjoy the double j-space

I stopped reading when you called it j-space.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2016-04-09 16:40:50 UTC
Well i did some math with todays weight numbers on sisi.
Bringing 3 armor caps won't be possible if you have an new hole that is of the minimum variance.
That is if you keep the current wh size of 3 bil.

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Jezza McWaffle
Holey Roamin' Empire
TURBOFEED OR GLORY
#60 - 2016-04-10 09:27:53 UTC
I think either increasing the maximum allowable jump mass, or reducing the mass reasonably significantly on capitals to allow 2 capitals + a small support fleet to go back and forth without trapping out the last capital would be a fairly cool approach (so 4 capital passes total). It would allow groups to bring out their capitals more often by being able to bring the capitals home post fight without trying to find a k-space exit.

Increasing the wormhole mass does provide the ability to field more subcapitals into a fight, and being able to fit an eve bigger T3 blob through the Wormhole is hardly something that would be desirable, but it also could pave the way for more extensive use of battleships outside of Bhaalgorns and Vindicators being used in capital based fleets. I think looking at ways to make more ships (battleships) useful in wormhole fights to shake up the meta is a very good thing, given how the meta hasn't changed from T3's since their introduction. However you also don't want to just make it so the defacto setup is bringing more Bhaalgorns to every fight and end up with a capital fleet + support of 10 bhaalgorns.


Most changes (and I'm still 50/50 on the jump distance changes) that shake up wormholes I do think are a good thing, everything is known at this point and having to find new ways of working with larger holes with varying hole masses is a good thing in my opinion. And to everyone complaining that any changes would nerf small groups straight into the ground I don't really see this, I'm not suggesting you allow 10 capitals to transverse a wormhole, if Wormhole masses had always been 5b not 3b you would not be here asking for the masses to be reduced.

Finally given we are losing combat refitting the survivability of each capital has effectively been reduced because you can't extreme fit in one direction or another, by allowing more capitals to transverse a wormhole either by increasing the maximum mass or (I think probably the best) reducing the mass of capitals significantly means we can bring more caps, and thus when one dies it does not necessarily mean the fight is now over because of it, as you may have another capital either waiting to jump in or already on field of its type.

If that's not quite clear and I know my wording can sometimes be off, I'll give an example. Currently most cap based fleets in wormholes are either 2 triage + dread or 2 dread + triage, in both cases this gives you a single capital of 1 role, and generally (obliviously there are exceptions) if you take out that lone capital then the fleet crumbles either through the lack of DPS to kill anything or because you no longer have logistics, if we can field more capitals to start with then the fights become more varied with how they play out when you lose 1 capital.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog